# C_2020103EN.01000903.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 16 December 2019 — LH v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-921/19)

(2020/C 103/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LH

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the determination by a determining authority of a Member State that original documents can never constitute new elements or findings if the authenticity of those documents cannot be established compatible with Article 40(2) of the Procedures Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Qualification Directive (2) and Articles 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? If not, does it make any difference if, in a subsequent application, copies of documents or documents originating from a non-objectively verifiable source are submitted by the applicant? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the determination by a determining authority of a Member State that original documents can never constitute new elements or findings if the authenticity of those documents cannot be established compatible with Article 40(2) of the Procedures Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Qualification Directive (2) and Articles 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? If not, does it make any difference if, in a subsequent application, copies of documents or documents originating from a non-objectively verifiable source are submitted by the applicant?

| 2. | Must Article 40 of the Procedures Directive, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Qualification Directive, be interpreted as allowing the determining authority of a Member State, when assessing documents and assigning probative value to documents, to distinguish between documents submitted in an initial application and those submitted in a subsequent application? Is it permissible for a Member State, when submitting documents in a subsequent application, no longer to comply with the obligation to cooperate if the authenticity of those documents cannot be established? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 40 of the Procedures Directive, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Qualification Directive, be interpreted as allowing the determining authority of a Member State, when assessing documents and assigning probative value to documents, to distinguish between documents submitted in an initial application and those submitted in a subsequent application? Is it permissible for a Member State, when submitting documents in a subsequent application, no longer to comply with the obligation to cooperate if the authenticity of those documents cannot be established?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (the Procedures Directive) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

(2)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (the Qualification Directive) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---